|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2007 02:20:24 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Really. That's very interesting. I'll have to try it. |
Hmm...
Considering colour and and tone, as you render them with your images, I come away with the feeling that you have the better colour sense. I feel mostly unsure as what treatment an image needs to push it forward close to its potential. My strength and weakness, however, is more akin to an insistance on my own taste and (pre-)vision (big word, this), regardless of the very different needs for different images.
What I mean is, that, if I had my way and remained true to my nature all of the time, I'd stay the hell away from processing images that you or someone else can see and (therefore) do better and, instead, restrict my work to the very narrow confines of my sensory repertoire.
Unfortunately, I appear to lack such good sense and, consequently, end up wearing feathers that don't suit me at all. :-/
So, yes, we should experiment, but, eventually, the experimentation should lead us somewhere. And home, methinks, would make a very solid destination.
"Jeder", as they say in German, "soll nach seiner eigenen Fasson selig werden."
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 03:02:46 PM · #27 |
My default setting for my 20D is cloudy WB. I do most of my shooting early and late, and I find that auto WB indeed destroys the color ambiance. HOWEVER, I shoot in RAW anyway, and this is what I recommend of course. I use the cloudy WB so the default view in the RAW converter is warmer, but I have the option of fine-tuning the WB of course.
It's perhaps the single most significant advantage of shooting in RAW.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 03:25:46 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ursula:
Really. That's very interesting. I'll have to try it. |
Hmm...
Considering colour and and tone, as you render them with your images, I come away with the feeling that you have the better colour sense. I feel mostly unsure as what treatment an image needs to push it forward close to its potential. My strength and weakness, however, is more akin to an insistance on my own taste and (pre-)vision (big word, this), regardless of the very different needs for different images.
What I mean is, that, if I had my way and remained true to my nature all of the time, I'd stay the hell away from processing images that you or someone else can see and (therefore) do better and, instead, restrict my work to the very narrow confines of my sensory repertoire.
Unfortunately, I appear to lack such good sense and, consequently, end up wearing feathers that don't suit me at all. :-/
So, yes, we should experiment, but, eventually, the experimentation should lead us somewhere. And home, methinks, would make a very solid destination.
"Jeder", as they say in German, "soll nach seiner eigenen Fasson selig werden." |
:)
To pull it all together is difficult.
I find "habits" disquieting. It's so easy to fall into a way of doing something, and never stop to think why it was you did it that way in the first place. It's troublesome to me when I feel "pidgeonholed". That's where trying something different, even as simple as changing to a different WB, is important, and fun, to me.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 03:59:24 PM · #29 |
Um, hello?
Shoot RAW, change later. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:05:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Um, hello?
Shoot RAW, change later. |
Shoot sloppy, change later.
Shoot well, change little.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:10:17 PM · #31 |
| It is perfectly acceptable - not sloppy - to adjust white balance during raw conversion. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:13:29 PM · #32 |
But it takes away from the fun of trying to get it just the way you wanted from the get-go. At least for me it does. :)
Adjusting WB during conversion is perfectly acceptable, yes, but I believe your images are better off if you get them as close as possible to the way you intended from the start, even with RAW.
Added: No idea if that's true, but it's what I choose to believe.
Message edited by author 2007-07-02 16:14:02. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:14:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Shoot sloppy, change later.
Shoot well, change little. |
Oh. I know, shoot in full auto. That's not changing later. That's letting the camera do it all for you. Because the camera knows everything. Heck, I paid a lot of money for my camera, it should do the work for me.
Ya right. Of course change later. I can't even get the right color temp from my camera. It only goes so low. Check out my minimal editing entry. My color temp doesn't go down that low.
 |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:17:37 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ursula:
But it takes away from the fun of trying to get it just the way you wanted from the get-go. At least for me it does. :)
Adjusting WB during conversion is perfectly acceptable, yes, but I believe your images are better off if you get them as close as possible to the way you intended from the start, even with RAW.
Added: No idea if that's true, but it's what I choose to believe. |
I'm considerably more impressed with myself as a photographer when I open a photo and say "WOW I nailed that!" than when I open a photo and immediately start finding things to change. I think it's much easier to process a photo that was taken properly in the first place.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 04:19:20 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by ursula:
But it takes away from the fun of trying to get it just the way you wanted from the get-go. At least for me it does. :)
Adjusting WB during conversion is perfectly acceptable, yes, but I believe your images are better off if you get them as close as possible to the way you intended from the start, even with RAW.
Added: No idea if that's true, but it's what I choose to believe. |
I'm considerably more impressed with myself as a photographer when I open a photo and say "WOW I nailed that!" than when I open a photo and immediately start finding things to change. I think it's much easier to process a photo that was taken properly in the first place. |
That's kinda what I was trying to say. I guess I wasn't very clear :( |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 05:51:04 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
I'm considerably more impressed with myself as a photographer when I open a photo and say "WOW I nailed that!" than when I open a photo and immediately start finding things to change. I think it's much easier to process a photo that was taken properly in the first place. |
I agree with you, mostly. There are many times when I'd like to get as close to the final look as possible in the "out of camera" image. There are, however, notable exceptions. Foremost, unless I'm in a situation where I don't have the "light budget" to do so, I always Expose to the Right. This can mean that the shot, as taken, is "overexposed," but it also means that I've maximized my dynamic range and minimized noise.
White balance is one area where, as long as I'm close so I can judge my results on the LCD, I don't really care. Sound sloppy? It is not, I assure you. No matter what WB is set, the RAW data recorded is precisely the same. If my intent is to perfect the look in conversion anyway, then getting precisely the desired WB in-camera is an unnecessary step. In fact, since I really don't trust the camera LCD for perfect color rendition, it seems counterproductive to try to nail the WB when shooting RAW. FWIW, the a similar line of thought applies to in-camera settings for sharpening, contrast and saturation.
My typical MO is to shoot RAW, with a set (non-auto) WB, low-contrast, and low-saturation. This makes the (JPEG-based) histogram as faithful to the RAW data as possible.
Now if I were shooting JPEG, different story. I'd then like to avoid significant changes to the file in post, and would certainly strive for a result as close as possible to the desired final look. I'd even need to be more conservative on exposure, given that highlight recovery is impossible on JPEGs (data is truly lost). |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:16:07 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
I'm considerably more impressed with myself as a photographer when I open a photo and say "WOW I nailed that!" than when I open a photo and immediately start finding things to change. I think it's much easier to process a photo that was taken properly in the first place. |
I agree with you, mostly. There are many times when I'd like to get as close to the final look as possible in the "out of camera" image. There are, however, notable exceptions. Foremost, unless I'm in a situation where I don't have the "light budget" to do so, I always Expose to the Right. This can mean that the shot, as taken, is "overexposed," but it also means that I've maximized my dynamic range and minimized noise.
White balance is one area where, as long as I'm close so I can judge my results on the LCD, I don't really care. Sound sloppy? It is not, I assure you. No matter what WB is set, the RAW data recorded is precisely the same. If my intent is to perfect the look in conversion anyway, then getting precisely the desired WB in-camera is an unnecessary step. In fact, since I really don't trust the camera LCD for perfect color rendition, it seems counterproductive to try to nail the WB when shooting RAW. FWIW, the a similar line of thought applies to in-camera settings for sharpening, contrast and saturation.
My typical MO is to shoot RAW, with a set (non-auto) WB, low-contrast, and low-saturation. This makes the (JPEG-based) histogram as faithful to the RAW data as possible.
Now if I were shooting JPEG, different story. I'd then like to avoid significant changes to the file in post, and would certainly strive for a result as close as possible to the desired final look. I'd even need to be more conservative on exposure, given that highlight recovery is impossible on JPEGs (data is truly lost). |
But see, you're making very specific thoughtful shot adjustments purposely, not blowing off shooting technique simply because you can always fix it. Therein lies the difference.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:16:16 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by ursula:
But it takes away from the fun of trying to get it just the way you wanted from the get-go. At least for me it does. :)
Adjusting WB during conversion is perfectly acceptable, yes, but I believe your images are better off if you get them as close as possible to the way you intended from the start, even with RAW.
Added: No idea if that's true, but it's what I choose to believe. |
It's not really true, in the sense that this is a camera parameter that you need to "instruct" your camera to perform. When you adjust WB in the RAW conversion stage, you are doing exactly the same thing, just after the fact. Here's the way it works:
1. Camera makes exposure and captures RAW data; it does this even if you are shooting in JPG.
2. Camera interprets RAW data according to what you tell it to do; more or less contrast, WB, saturation, sharpness, all these are in-camera parameters that may also be set in RAW processing.
3. There IS one significant area in which it's better to get it "right" in-camera, and that's the actual exposure; it's always better to nail the exposure properly at the time of capture, because this is not an in-camera parameter. To a certain extent RAW lets you be sloppy in exposure, because you can recover within a limited range, but it's always better to nail the exposure from the get-go.
4. Everything else, there's no difference between the two if you are using RAW: the basic functionality of RAW is that it brings the in-camera adjustments of the RAW exposure into your computer, where you have more precise control of them.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:32:28 PM · #39 |
| I'm glad you all posted this about shooting RAW, this past weekend I was shooting at a cave and snake museum. Another photog and I were talking and he wanted to see some of my shots. I told him I had to change cards cause I already filled it. When he saw it was a 1gig he said "dang what are you shooting on"? I told him RAW+jpg and he said "oh you cheat huh" I asked what he meant and he said "you should always shoot to get it right". I told him I do try and get it right but I like to have options. I was starting to feel like an idiot for using a very useful part of processing. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:40:48 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
I'm glad you all posted this about shooting RAW, this past weekend I was shooting at a cave and snake museum. Another photog and I were talking and he wanted to see some of my shots. I told him I had to change cards cause I already filled it. When he saw it was a 1gig he said "dang what are you shooting on"? I told him RAW+jpg and he said "oh you cheat huh" I asked what he meant and he said "you should always shoot to get it right". I told him I do try and get it right but I like to have options. I was starting to feel like an idiot for using a very useful part of processing. |
People like that are the same sort of people who think you should use hickory clubs to play golf. Sure, it may be more of a challenge. but if you're interested int he bottom line, get with the program.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:44:39 PM · #41 |
| Changing WB affects the exposure as well. It's quite possible to have a nice, unclipped histogram at a certain WB setting and then cause one or more channels to get clipped by merely "correcting" the WB during RAW conversion. Therefore, depending on how anal one is about "nailing" everything in-camera, setting the WB as precisely as possible even while shooting RAW might be important. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 06:54:53 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Changing WB affects the exposure as well. It's quite possible to have a nice, unclipped histogram at a certain WB setting and then cause one or more channels to get clipped by merely "correcting" the WB during RAW conversion. Therefore, depending on how anal one is about "nailing" everything in-camera, setting the WB as precisely as possible even while shooting RAW might be important. |
Nope.
The RAW data is what it is. The WB setting only tells how to interpret it. The only use that the WB setting has in-camera is judging the LCD display and histogram. If it is way off, you may make errors in judging the histogram, since the histogram is based on the JPEG conversion using the in-camera settings. For this reason, it's good to be at least in the ballpark with WB. It's not necessary to be precise.
Remember that the RAW data are linear, while the JPEG conversion applies an "S" curve to boost contrast. This makes the histogram overstate clipping, and it's why I use the flattest setting I can. I want the histogram to replicate, as closely as possible, the RAW data, so I know where I really am with regards to exposure. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 07:22:50 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Tycho:
Changing WB affects the exposure as well... |
Nope.
The RAW data is what it is. The WB setting only tells how to interpret it. The only use that the WB setting has in-camera is judging the LCD display and histogram. If it is way off, you may make errors in judging the histogram, since the histogram is based on the JPEG conversion using the in-camera settings. For this reason, it's good to be at least in the ballpark with WB. It's not necessary to be precise.
Remember that the RAW data are linear, while the JPEG conversion applies an "S" curve to boost contrast. This makes the histogram overstate clipping, and it's why I use the flattest setting I can. I want the histogram to replicate, as closely as possible, the RAW data, so I know where I really am with regards to exposure. |
We're completely in agreement regarding the RAW data and how it's interpreted so as to generate in-camera histogram. By the way, some cameras, such as the Nikon D70, can use custom curves. So, theoretically one can load a flat curve into the camera and the jpeg the camera uses to display the histogram would not be as skewed by boosted contrast. But that's beside the point now. What I was trying to say is this: You shoot RAW with the WB set to, say, Auto. You then load the photo into ACR and see a nice histogram when the RAW data gets interpreted based on in-camera WB setting, but realize that the auto-WB did not get it quite right and decide to change the WB. When you do, you might find out that one channel gets clipped. This has happened to me more than once, and usually I was able to somewhat recover the clipped channel with a saturation mask, and that's good enough for me. However, if I were obsessive enough about image quality, I'd rather not have to resort to such Photoshop tricks and lose some quality in the process. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 07:34:04 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Tycho:
Changing WB affects the exposure as well... |
Nope.
The RAW data is what it is. The WB setting only tells how to interpret it. The only use that the WB setting has in-camera is judging the LCD display and histogram. If it is way off, you may make errors in judging the histogram, since the histogram is based on the JPEG conversion using the in-camera settings. For this reason, it's good to be at least in the ballpark with WB. It's not necessary to be precise.
Remember that the RAW data are linear, while the JPEG conversion applies an "S" curve to boost contrast. This makes the histogram overstate clipping, and it's why I use the flattest setting I can. I want the histogram to replicate, as closely as possible, the RAW data, so I know where I really am with regards to exposure. |
We're completely in agreement regarding the RAW data and how it's interpreted so as to generate in-camera histogram. By the way, some cameras, such as the Nikon D70, can use custom curves. So, theoretically one can load a flat curve into the camera and the jpeg the camera uses to display the histogram would not be as skewed by boosted contrast. But that's beside the point now. What I was trying to say is this: You shoot RAW with the WB set to, say, Auto. You then load the photo into ACR and see a nice histogram when the RAW data gets interpreted based on in-camera WB setting, but realize that the auto-WB did not get it quite right and decide to change the WB. When you do, you might find out that one channel gets clipped. This has happened to me more than once, and usually I was able to somewhat recover the clipped channel with a saturation mask, and that's good enough for me. However, if I were obsessive enough about image quality, I'd rather not have to resort to such Photoshop tricks and lose some quality in the process. |
This completely misses the point: RAW data are what the camera captures. WB is applied by the camera after the fact. There is ZERO difference between applying WB in-camera vs applying it in RAW conversion. What you have is what you have. If the exposure is so tricky that WB can affect it, then you need to bracket exposures...
R.
Message edited by author 2007-07-02 19:34:37.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 07:47:52 PM · #45 |
I thought I would upload a few photos from the parade we had here tonight. These were recorded as jpegs, 100 iso, 1/160 speed and various f-stops. I like the color it gives and pretty much all the photos turned out well.
  
|
|
|
|
07/02/2007 07:53:23 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tycho:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Tycho:
Changing WB affects the exposure as well... |
Nope.
The RAW data is what it is. The WB setting only tells how to interpret it... |
We're completely in agreement regarding the RAW data and how it's interpreted so as to generate in-camera histogram... |
This completely misses the point: RAW data are what the camera captures. WB is applied by the camera after the fact. There is ZERO difference between applying WB in-camera vs applying it in RAW conversion. What you have is what you have. If the exposure is so tricky that WB can affect it, then you need to bracket exposures...
R. |
OK, I give up. Obviously I fail to make myself clear, and I don't know how else to put it. Everybody can work the way they deem appropriate and be happy. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 08:39:27 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
OK, I give up. Obviously I fail to make myself clear, and I don't know how else to put it. Everybody can work the way they deem appropriate and be happy. |
They are saying the exposure is fixed when you take the photo. Effect that WB tinkering has on the histogram in post does not change the original exposure. |
|
|
|
07/02/2007 08:43:55 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Tycho:
OK, I give up. Obviously I fail to make myself clear, and I don't know how else to put it. Everybody can work the way they deem appropriate and be happy. |
They are saying the exposure is fixed when you take the photo. Effect that WB tinkering has on the histogram in post does not change the original exposure. |
Right. And to the degree that WB tinkering does affect the overexposure of certain channels in the image, the LCD display is not precise enough to nail it anyway; if things are that tight, you need to bracket either way.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2007 08:24:09 AM · #49 |
This is all really good information. Thanks, guys!
Buckeye_Fan, did you take these using the cloudy setting? I didn't get the chance to try it yesterday, but will the next time I'm out shooting. |
|
|
|
07/03/2007 08:43:06 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by pianomom:
This is all really good information. Thanks, guys!
Buckeye_Fan, did you take these using the cloudy setting? I didn't get the chance to try it yesterday, but will the next time I'm out shooting. |
Yep all done under the cloudy setting.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 01:48:02 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 01:48:02 AM EDT.
|
